By David Packer
The recent debates about torture provide insight in how looking through the lens of systems thinking can change the picture and possibly lead to better conclusions.
To some, the issue is simple: Torture, while undesirable, is the best way of protecting our way of life by preventing terrorist attacks and activity. From that perspective, it is "worth it." We sense a threat and use whatever means necessary to collect information. We then act on that intelligence and remove the threat. This is a clear balancing loop of seeing a gap, acting to close the gap, and closing it. Our society is saved. End of story.
But maybe not. Other loops are lurking, fuzzier and slower, but maybe more powerful. These are the unintended consequences of the same action that, if strong enough, can work to make us less safe, the exact opposite of what we want.
For example, the act of torture--or even perceived torture--almost certainly upsets both enemies and friends, creating more threats and less help in meeting them. Over time, as President Obama recently hypothesized, it can "corrode the character of the country." Such impacts drive the system downhill, increase threats, and stimulate even more violence. This gives us a reinforcing process that can be a literal death spiral. (In systems language, this structure is called the "Fixes That Fail" archetype).
A systems perspective allows us to see, darkly at times, not only the most visible loop but also others that describe possible unintended consequences. By bringing these other loops into the light, we can then debate the power of various interactions--and make more informed choices. The question here becomes, for example: In what other ways can we achieve the same goal without unleashing the negative side effects?
Practice in using such a lens can bring openness and definition to our way of viewing our world. It enhances, I believe, our shot at creating the future our children and grandchildren deserve.
Dave Packer is founding partner of the Systems Thinking Collaborative, veteran of the MIT System Dynamics Group and of Digital Equipment Corporation, grandparent of eleven, Ginny Wiley's spouse, and a Red Sox fan, among other things.
By Janice Molloy
When economic times are tough, businesses tend to focus on boosting employees' productivity--on accomplishing more with fewer people. With the current high levels of unemployment, some organizations rely on fear of layoffs to "motivate" their workers. Seeking a more positive spin, others may turn to incentives. But as explained by Dan Heath and Chip Heath in "The Curse of Incentives," published in the February 2009 issue of Fast Company, incentives "are effective, irresistible, and almost certain to backfire."
The "Fixes That Backfire" systems archetype (also referred to as "Fixes That Fail") commonly occurs when people think they have solved a problem, only to have it recur with a vengeance later. In their article, Heath and Heath give several examples of how incentives produce their intended effect in the short run while causing serious collateral damage down the road.
For example, NFL quarterback Ken O'Brien was notorious for throwing interceptions. In an effort to boost his performance, one team wrote into his contact a financial penalty for each pick he threw. The provision had its intended effect: O'Brien threw fewer interceptions, not because his accuracy improved, but because he threw far fewer passes than before. Presumably, this lower number of attempts adversely affected his teams' ability to move the ball and, ultimately, score points.
The authors attribute the problem of failing to anticipate the side effects of our policies to something psychologists call a "focusing illusion." Basically, by focusing on one variable--such as interceptions--managers fail to take into account the impact of a particular action on other variables in the system.
So, what light can a systems perspective cast on the incentive trap? Understanding the "Fixes That Backfire" archetype can help us:
- Better define the problem (in this case, the problem wasn't interceptions but not enough completed passes)
- Clarify the goal of any proposed action (improving accuracy)
- Be aware of possible unintended byproducts of policies (when you penalize the quarterback for interceptions, he will throw fewer passes)
- Ensure that we're addressing the underlying problem rather than a symptom (improve the quarterback's accuracy through training, the quality of the receivers, the protection from the offensive line)
- Identify a variety of potential fixes (rather than penalize for interceptions, reward for completions; hire a quarterback coach; reevaluate the game strategy)
- Test actions before, during, and after implementation for counterproductive effects, and
- Measure the impact of your intervention
While taking these steps may be time consuming, the alternative is investing in solutions that don't achieve their intended goals. And that's a game plan that no team can afford to follow.
Click here for information about reading causal loop diagrams.
